Natural Lighting Inside Church

[shawn_mertz]

<p>Weddings are a horrible time/place to learn photography.<br>

The non-wedding photos on your website are very nice. <br>

Churches can be very beautiful but challenging to photograph in. The exposure and white balance are pretty good. if you had stuck to iso 1600 you would be better off. There are noise plugins you can use to help with that. As long as you aren't making super big prints from these you are ok. <br>

The bad news is the lighting on their faces is not good. Assume the lighting will always be bad. Lighting is as important as knowing how to use a camera. Study lighting, for now keep it simple just the flash you have been using. take your husband to a church and practice, study them, practice some more. Practice, practice, practice, just like dancers, athletes and doctors, never stop learning and practicing.</p>

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Thank you, Shawn! I sure will! And thanks for the props on my website. I haven't added any photos from this particular wedding yet, but I will soon. I was actually surprised how many great images I got from this session despite some of my indoor troubles. I hope I can look back in this and laugh one day because I KNOW I have some major progress to make! :)</p>

[savagesax]

Well the ISO was surely way too high. My general rule is I don't go over an ISO setting of 800. I personally think the

background glass is blown out, so you lost some really cool artistic beauty, but thats OK. Most people wouldn't notice.

 

I know that people may disagree with me about ISO settings. I kind of don't care! I know that the new cameras have

very high ISO's and that's great for some types of photography, but not for weddings. Some photographers may say that

you can go to 6400. I don't agree. Try making a 16X20 enlargement. It won't look very good, compared to the same

image shot at an ISO setting of 400.

 

As others have said, use a flash, a pod, and based on what I see I'd set the camera at 30th of a second at F4, no lower,

because the background stained glass will be blown out. From the distance you are at, I'd go full power with your flash,

you must be about 20 to 25 feet away, depending on the lens of choice. If you had set the F stop at F8 there wouldn't

have been enough flash to reach the people and the people's faces would go too dark. Because of a lot of light in the

church my ISO setting would have been 400.

 

When shoot weddings never go over F11 even when you are outside. When you are inside don't go over F5.6. Use

slower ISO settings like ISO 100 or 200 for outside shots. Remember that the higher ISO settings you go the more grain

you will see, such as in the example you posted.

 

So it's a learning exercise for you to learn about how flash units work. I have very powerful flash units so I can get away

with a lot, shooting as far as perhaps 35 feet away, but most flash units are limited to about 20 feet at full power. Again,

you kind of have to test this out so you will be comfortable at your next wedding.

 

I like the pose, you seem to have that natural talent needed to make a wedding party look good! Keep up the good work.

 

Hope this helps.

[garethspics]

<p>Don't overlook the monopod, much more portable than a tripod. Great when you're in a bit of a hurry.</p>

[joe_morris2]

<p>Hi, Forget the Gary Fong thing waste of time. Normally can't use flash during the ceremony but in your case I would have set up an off camera flash and shoot through umbrella, very quick to set up.<br>

If you have any nice churches near you then pop in when convenient and experiment with your lighting, taking some friends if possible. Even better if you can do this in a church where you have an up and coming wedding.<br>

If you have any popular wedding locations near you go along and just watch the wedding photographer in action. You will learn a lot and you will soon learn the difference between the good and the bad. </p>

 

[Marcus Ian]

<p>@ K Liz - I'm interested in why your 6Ds underexposed the barn shots shot in Av. In general, the only reason it would do that is if you've accidentally set your exposure compensation to -1 or -2. While you may think that the camera does something special when set in Av, all it does is change the settings you set manually in M. ie. there are only three factors that go into your exposure. Shutter speed, ISO, and aperture. All Av does is fix the aperture at the specified f stop, and change the shutter speed (and sometimes ISO - depending on the camera and mode) to obtain a correct exposure given the amount of light and the ISO setting.</p>

<p>The camera meters off the light TTL, and should choose an appropriate shutter speed. If you set the EC to -1 or -2 accidentally, then this tells the camera you <em>want </em>the image to appear darker, so it increases the shutter speed to darken the image. It sounds to me like this may be why you are pushing for M even though you are not really ready to do so in a wedding - even though obviously, M will ignore any EC preferences you set.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm interested in why your 6Ds underexposed the barn shots shot in Av. In general, the only reason it would do that is if you've accidentally set your exposure compensation to -1 or -2."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In her reply it would be beneficial if Karen notates what <strong>METERING MODE</strong> was used for those <em>"actually WAY underexposed"</em> shots of the barn.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Marcus, I'm not sure why the Av or Tv modes were not working properly. And WW, I normally use the center weighted average but I had switched it to spot metering in case I wanted to focus and recompose and not have my barn in the middle. With the bright background and the dark barn, I was hoping the spot metering would lighten up my barn better. Is this correct?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Spot metering would be why! </p>

<p>On the 6D (and every other Canon other than a recent 1D), the spot metering is <strong>only</strong> linked to the center AF point. So if you focus on the barn with your center point, then recompose, and the center point is NOT on the barn, the image will meter of where the center point is at the time you press the shutter. With the rest of the scene brightly lit, that would predictably underexpose the barn.</p>

<p>In this case (and anytime you are focus recomposing while using spot metering IMO), you would focus, then press the AE lock button (the "*")<em> then</em> recompose. The AE lock locks the exposure setting for whatever you've currently metered, and holds it there until after you've pressed the shutter. Once you become experienced using that process, it becomes second nature, and you can achieve the same results as M in a fraction of the time (at least that's my experience) - which can be <em>critical</em> in a wedding environment (though I'd still shoot barns in M ;) ), where you frequently have a high difference between subject and background lighting.</p>

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Good to know, Marcus! I will definitely give it a try next time I'm out shooting. </p>

<p>I did go out to the church the other day for this next wedding and used M for everything. I even did an engagement session with them at the same time in all those places so I feel much more comfortable now with using it. </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>And WW, I <strong>normally use the center weighted average</strong> but I had <strong>switched it to spot metering</strong> in case I wanted to focus and recompose and not have my barn in the middle. With the bright background and the dark barn, I was hoping the spot metering would lighten up my barn better. <strong>Is this correct?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Karen, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to make photographs. For example, I use Spot Metering often, but not necessarily the way Marcus detailed, that doesn't make either he or I right or wrong, it is just that we each use the camera's technology differently. </p>

<p>I think that you would benefit by taking this message to heart and acting upon it - my bold now for emphasis:</p>

<p>It is very important that you understand the automation of your camera: <strong>in my experience many novice Wedding Photographers (actually many Photographers) do not understand the functionality of the Metering MODES of their cameras.</strong> </p>

<p>Whatever Camera Mode you choose (P; Av; Tv or M) –</p>

<p><strong>IF you are using the Camera’s TTL Meter for exposure GUIDENCE,</strong> then <strong>you must understand how each of the Metering MODES works and appreciate the information that it is providing to you:</strong> thus you are able to apply EC appropriately when using the Automatic Modes (P; Av and Tv) or compute the Manual Exposure when using M Mode.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[savagesax]

Way to go Liz K, to go and practice. Can you post something?

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Thanks, Bob! Are you asking me to post something from this shoot that turned out well? Or something else?</p>

[savagesax]

Something from this last shoot that you like a lot!!!

[nancy_evans]

<p>change the flash settings.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>change the flash settings.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How would that assist? The OP was not using Flash, that is the point of her asking the question, viz:</p>

<p><strong>"Natural Lighting Inside Church" </strong><br>

"I shot an indoor wedding yesterday trying to not use a flash. . . .</p>

[fotografz]

<blockquote>

<p>"Natural Lighting Inside Church"<br>

I shot an indoor wedding yesterday trying to not use flash...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After 40 responses, this statement is the crux of the issue William. </p>

<p>It begs the question as to why the OP wanted to shoot available light when that light was poor in quality, quantity, and direction?</p>

<p>Evaluation of lighting conditions for this sort of group portrait should NOT be an arbitrary creative decision, but instead a observational technical one. </p>

<p><em> "Trying to not use flash"</em> ... why? Was it because the OP is not prepared to deal with the variety of lighting conditions a wedding photographer is sure to encounter? Is she unschooled in the use of supplementary light and/or is afraid of it? Is she not properly equipped with lighting to solve such situations when they inevitably arise?</p>

<p>To K Liz:</p>

<p>While it is fine to be a beginner (we all were at one time), it is less so when learning is at the expense of a paying client whom has every right to expect a certain level of expertise from a paid photographer.</p>

<p>My advice:</p>

<p>The advent of digital photography has afforded you the opportunity to see what you are shooting instantly, and make adjustments on the spot. This is very important for working with flash or strobes.</p>

<p>Learn to use manual mode on your camera because it provides the most direct control. Automated exposure modes are easily tricked by back-lighting and odd light sources or directions.</p>

<p>Learn to use off camera flash so you can light groups while dropping the shadows down behind them. </p>

<p>Learn how to "drag the shutter" when working in low light with flash.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Thank you to everyone who has continued to post on this. @Marc, since the responses to this post, I shot another wedding inside a church. I used on-camera flash and bounced it, which worked well. When the ceilings did not permit a good bounce, I used diffused flash. When I shot big groups inside the church at this last wedding, I just used diffused on-camera flash as there wasn't time to set up off-camera lighting. There was a lot going on, people coming in and out, very little time to do anything, and the on-camera diffused lighting worked out just fine. Not glare or harsh shadows, etc. I was also careful to not raise my ISO up past 3600, and in most cases, I didn't need to. I also shot in full M mode, which worked out great! So, thanks to everyone's suggestions and help, things definitely improved as a result!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Good job!</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

[savagesax]

Just about every wedding is very fast moving, when you are inside often there is a short time limit of only 15 minutes. Other

times you can't shoot inside at all. Then if you are lucky you can take an hour or more. So always be prepared for the worst.

[artnethouse]

<p>Good day. Not only largest possible aperture, but will help underexposing. I do churches regularly <i>[see the member's website for examples of their work]</i></p>

 

<p><i>Mod note: this post has been edited and an irrelevant image was removed</i><p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Not only largest possible aperture,<strong> but will help underexposing</strong>."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Could you please explain the reason for that advice?</p>

<p>To advise underexposing seems to be very strange advice, possibly inappropriate even poor advice as it contrary to the purpose of have the least amount of and appearance of noise.</p>

<p>Especially when working at mid and high ISO levels with a digital camera <strong>underexposing results in more noise</strong>:</p>

<p>Moreover, the OP is specifically concerned about the noise - viz: <em>"The second image is just to show how noisy the shot is close up due to the ISO being so high."</em></p>

<p>WW</p>